Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T07:57:20.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Public and Private Lands: USDA W2133 Regional Research Project Legacy and Current Contributions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Michael D. Kaplowitz
Affiliation:
Department of Community Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan
John C. Bergstrom
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics at The University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia
Get access

Extract

In 1967, a group of resource and environmental economists from across the nation got together under the auspices of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to form a multistate collaborative research project. The goal of this research initiative was to bring together natural resource and environmental economists from across land grant and non-land grant institutions in order to advance natural resource benefit and cost methods, collect primary data on pertinent natural resource policies, and develop applications for extending the usefulness of primary data on the benefits and costs of natural resource policy. Initially given the USDA project identification number WM-59, the Western Regional Research Project: Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Public and Private Lands has been a productive intellectual, professional, and policymaking endeavor for more than forty-two years. While the project indentifying moniker has been changed from time to time (from WM-59 to W133 to W1133 to W2133) and there has been the loss, sometimes untimely, of project participants over the years, the group continuously provides opportunities for some of the nation's most engaged resource and environmental economists to work together, share their ideas, provide feedback and support, and advance the state-of-the art in valuation methods and applications.

Type
Introduction to the Special Issue
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., and Schuman, H. 1993. “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58(10, January 15): 46014614.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, J.C., and Loomis, J.B. 2006. “What Is W133, and How Has Non Market Valuation Research Responded to Environmental and Resource Problems and Policies?AERE Newsletter 26 (1, May): 2124.Google Scholar
Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., and Brown, T.C. 2003. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clawson, M. 1959. Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation. Reprint No. 10, Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Clawson, M., and Knetsch, J.L. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M. III. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. (2nd edition). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Haab, T.C., and McConnell, K.E. 2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplowitz, M.D., Lupi, F., and Hoehn, J.P. 2004. “Multiple-Methods for Developing and Evaluating a Stated Choice Survey to Value Wetlands.” In Pressor, S., Rothgeb, J.M., Couper, M.P., Lessler, J.T., Martin, E., Martin, J., and Singer, E., eds., Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1973. “Water and Related Land Resources: Establishment of Principles and Standards for Planning.” Federal Register 38(174, III, September 10): 4.Google Scholar